Press Ctrl+F (Windows) or ⌘ Command+F (Mac) to find a discussion on this page.
Embarrassing content ahead!
Like many editors, I have made mistakes, and at the time, I did not have sufficient maturity to understand what Wikipedia was for. This was a serious competence is required fail. This and this archive have several big mistakes that I have made. I have learned my lesson, and now make productive edits inside the encyclopedia and avoid creating unnecessary userpages.
I have a great idea...
...and here it is: Request another self-block, but this time for five years. Maybe by then you'll have figured out something to do here other than tinkering with background colors, nannying others' user pages, and so on. [1] Wikipedia doesn't need "tech enthusiasts" [2] who contribute nothing. EEng11:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, UpsandDowns1234. If you find it extremely or even EXTREMELY annoying[3] that EEng has images in the margin of his userpage, I think you can avoid the annoyance by not visiting his page. Alternatively, if you like to go there to enjoy the museums, and then find you wish to use the left margin for navigation, I should think it would be easy, and take less than a second, to click on somebody else's page (your own, for instance) and use the navigation links there. It seems a better solution than to aggravate users about their page design, no matter what WP:SMI says. Please use common sense in applying guidelines. PS, I found it a little inconvenient myself that the "edit" link for this section was so hard to find, being a very dark blue on black, at least in the skin I use. Bishonen | talk12:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC).
Indeed. Which is also why the actual link to SMI is almost invisible in that post. This is a ridiculous situation. UpsandDowns, please see MOS:CONTRAST and Help:Link color: 'Refrain from implementing colored links that may impede user ability to distinguish links from regular text'. Etc. Many thanks, — fortunavelut luna13:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@EEng:@Bishonen:@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: my point is that WP:SMI is part of the community guidelines, and it says that disruption to the mw interface may be remedied by any user. I look at any IP edits and give warnings to IP users about the policies. Now please, get rid of the disruptive images in the navigation pane. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 18:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is much of an improvement really. Either you haven't read the pages I linked too, or this is some sort of game for you? Or is it that, having been asked not to mess around with others' pages, you thought you would mess around with your own? — fortunavelut luna18:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have gotten off of a block, but I have been better. I left a note on NeilN's talk page regarding my block. I like Wikipedia's policies, and I know WP:SMI governs user pages and all that stuff. I am not ready for another block, but I know that I have tried hard to stick to the guidelines. I do not mean to disrupt, but I did make a mistake with the massive redirects to the main page. I should've have done that. I just want to stick to the policies and that is it. I revert vandalism and warn IP users who do not stick to the policies, mainly level 1 and level 2. I may have said this, but I am interested in the maintenance of the project, and am not intending disruption. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 18:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I think the best way of putting it- like Bishonene touched on re. the SMI- is to ask yourself, before making an edit, how that edit will benefit the readers of this encyclopaedia? Generally, editing other editors' user pages will not. Obviously excepting vandalism, spam, copyrights, etc. But if you want to be more involved in the coding side, then there are plenty of outlets for that energy :) and I think I'm right in saying that we always need techheads around here, in all different ways. Just remember though, that, just because a page says you can do smething, only on a rarified few occasions will it tell you that you must do it. See the difference? And your colours are now much better, that's a good start, thanks for listening: you see, however well intentioned people are, the moment it seems they are not listening is the moment that a lot of good faith can turn into scotch mist. So it's best avoided :) — fortunavelut luna18:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@EEng: one more thing - on a mobile device, such as the iPhone 6, the disruption blocks the talk link at the top of the mobile view. Very disruptive. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 07:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I guess if (a) you hadn't had the temerity to "fix" my user page instead of just raising the issue with me; or (b) any of the 100,000 visitors I've had in the past few years had cared about this "disruption"; or (c) you weren't still pinging me from various other places where you're still trying to make trouble about this [4], then I might give a f***. What part of Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's warning that the moment it seems they are not listening is the moment that a lot of good faith can turn into scotch mist don't you understand? Or are you just not listening? EEng11:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
As Floquenbeam has already explained to you, while Wikipedia isn't all work and no play it's also not all play and no work, and your treating this site as your personal sandbox is wasting a lot of time of a lot of people, all of whom have better things to do than clean up your messes. Quit screwing around with templates, quit screwing around with userpages, quit screwing around creating pointless redirects, quit screwing around making pointless requests, and get rid of the WP:ACCESS-violating black-on-pumpkin color scheme and the constant f***ing about with the tilt attribute. If you want to contribute productively here, we're glad to have you, but Wikipedia is an educational resource, not your personal sandbox.
The whole of the above—in particular, "Wikipedia is not your personal sandbox"—still stands. This is every edit you've made (at the time of writing) since your block expired, and as far as I can see there is not a single constructive edit amongst them. You've had far more leeway granted to you than we usually give to someone who wastes as much time for other editors as you do; if there is any further disruptive editing from you you will be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent18:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea... how about every time I click edit a dialog pops up that reads "before you start editing, how does your edit positively affect Wikipedia"? That can be an alternative to an indefinite block. I do not know which variables to use, but this may be helpful and reduce disruption significantly. I have always stuck to Wikipedia's policies and plan on doing so even if I am blocked. What I am afraid though is that you will block me for being not here. UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 20:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Last thing... I have evidence that the code I removed from EEng's user page was disruptive - see this screenshot on OneDrive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsandDowns1234 (talk • contribs)
Are you really a deaf fool, or do you just play one on Wikipedia? If you ping me one more time about this idiotic preoccupation, I'm gonna reach through the internet and strangle you. In all seriousness, how old are you? EEng21:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No, if you're really so stupid you have to write a warning system to advise yourself not to be incompetent, you're not what we want here. This is every edit you have ever made on Wikipedia (not including the 140+ edits that were so problematic they had to be deleted altogether); what proportion of them would you say have significantly increased the likelihood of a reader learning useful information about a topic? Providing accurate, neutral and reliable sourced information to readers is the sole purpose of Wikipedia; if you want somewhere to play around I'm sure Wikia would be glad to have you. (Besides, we're not likely to take your complaints about someone else's userpage interfering with the reader experience from someone who's displayed your level of systematic incompetence when it comes to wiki markup, and whose talk page as I write this is a fetching shade of dayglo yellow.) And for someone who will NOT be revealing my age you might want to take the link on your userpage where you confirm you're a schoolchild down. ‑ Iridescent20:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly what I did during block #1 and I got blocked from Uncyclopedia indefinitely. How about a six month block and a deletion of my subpages? If two months did not work, then six will have to be it. If I ever come back with a constructive edit to the main namespace to make, I will use the {{Unblock}} template. See you in six months (or sooner)! UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 00:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've no intention of enacting a self-requested WP:CIR block. Either you're willing and competent enough to contribute constructively, in which case you're welcome, or you're not in which case you're not, and that isn't something that will magically change in six months. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia for six months then don't edit Wikipedia for six months—this is a website, not methamphetamine. If you just avoid making any edit to any page in the Wikipedia: and Template: namespaces altogether, avoid making any edit to the User: namespace unless it's essential that you do so or an edit to a genuine sandbox article draft, and quit screwing about with formatting and redirects, it would solve almost all your issues right away. ‑ Iridescent09:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I wasted no admin's time this time, and the admin I asked happened to be a good coder and fix User:EEng's userpage on mobile. Desktop is fine, but that screenshot is showing the disruption on mobile. Ups and Downs (↕) 13:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to make this clear: you wasted a huge amount of many people's time over something trivial. Since, along the way, someone else discovered a way to remove the very, very minor problem you were harping about, we went ahead and and did that. But it wasn't worth the time sink, not by half, not by a factor of ten. Since then you've been wandering about making random inexplicable tinkerings and requests. EEng13:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I am better off at Wikidata, so I should only be editing articles. In other words, you can ban me from editing Wikipedia: pages altogether, but still give me the option to submit an edit request. This must be hard on both you, NeilN and Iridescent, because I wasted your time [5]. Any more disruption in the Wikipedia: or template: namespace and you can ban me, and I should only be editing them ONLY IF it is necessary or constructive (or if it is controversial then we can use the talk page), such as that RPP that was declined as unnecessary. I see that only pages that are frequently edited disruptively or blanked should be protected, such as the page on Donald Trump. Ups and Downs (↕) 13:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Finalmente, I am not a child. Sure I go to school, but I am a teen, not a child. You can't have YouTube unless if you are 13 or above by the COPPA. Now do not call me a child ever again. Ups and Downs (↕) 13:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I am better off at Wikidata – I don't even know what that means. Iridescent, I leave this headache to you. I'm unwatching. EEng13:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is Wikidata, in all of its glory. It is the place where you write the descriptions for articles on Wikipedia. I like it because it not only helps with search indexing, but it allows people who are searching to find the right article for what they are talking about. Ups and Downs (↕) 13:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not trying to harass anyone. I just thought you did not know what Wikidata is, but once I saw your talk page without an official welcome, I decided to welcome you. Ups and Downs (↕) 05:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Uw-selfblock, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Template:Frequent substitution, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Here is, as you must know, completely pointless. That page hasn't been edited in five and a half years: why could you possibly think it needs protection? And, while we're at it, do you really think this was adhering to the warning issued you above, in which you were explicitly told to "avoid making any edit to any page in the Wikipedia... namespaces altogether... unless it's essential that you do so" and to "quit screwing around making pointless requests." And you have not? — fortunavelut luna08:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Anything to be helpful and not disruptive is what I am trying. I preview my edit to check that it is useful and helpful to Wikipedia. For example, I moved the align on an article template about checkmate to the right by editing the article, not the template. Ups and Downs (↕) 12:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You keep going to RfPP and your requests are simply bad. How many of them have been fulfilled? That should tell you something about your requests. [7][8][9][10][11] RfPP has been getting backlogged lately, and I've put in a lot of time to keep the page under control. Dealing with repeated frivolous requests is not helping. Enigmamsg15:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Five unfilled requests is not an "admin backlog". For the last time, stop f***ing about on any page in Wikipedia space unless you understand what you're doing—my patience for your incompetence has well and truly run out. There won't be any more warnings—the next piece of goofing around from you I see will result in an immediate and indefinite block. ‑ Iridescent20:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Like I said above, just block me for six months long enough to lose interest in maintenance in the project, and I will stop. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
and lastly, I do NOT intend to disrupt Wikipedia. I just started looking at new pages that may not conform to Wikipedia's policies, and tagged two or three articles that met the CSD. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, the next complaint from an editor will mean an indefblock for me, be it tomorrow or six months. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Enigmaman, however, I am looking for a solution that does not require me to be logged out every time I need to edit. Plus, it would be WP:SOCKPUPPETRY if I copy the same "disruptive" behavior when I am logged out. Therefore, I will stay logged in, but I will request a self block. Also, I will ping Bishonen, as he is willing to take requests for self-blocks. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I would also say: Moral of the story, making assumptions (other than they are trying to help the encyclopedia) can be harmful, as we do not know who is sitting behind the computer on the other end. Ups and Downs (↕) 05:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to consider requests for blocks. Please read my conditions at User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks carefully and indicate below, or on my page, that you have read them, and confirm that you want a block. In your case, I would impose a 24-hour waiting period before I actually block. Six months is the maximum. Is that what you want? Or maybe three? Bishonen | talk09:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
6 months, if I come back with a good edit, then I will either use the {{unblock}} template, email you, or, in the case which you will revoke talk page and email access, submit a request to WP:UTRS. Now please go ahead. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I also used the article wizard to create a template specifically for self-requested blocks called {{uw-selfblock}}. It should be substituted always. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I won't block you, because it doesn't look like you read my self-requested blocks page "carefully", to put it mildly. I frankly don't understand the point of a block that I would simply undo if you e-mailed me — and here you're already making plans for e-mailing me, and/or using UTRS, as soon as there's a "good edit" you want to make. (A "good" edit in your own opinion, which hasn't appeared to be very reliable so far, but that's a separate problem.) Didn't you see where I said on User:Bishonen/Self-requested blocks : "I will not unblock you on request, and I ask that no other admin unblock you without consulting me first. (Barring exceptional circumstances, I'll be dead against it.)" ? It seems not. A self-requested block isn't a joke or a mere pretense of a block, at least mine aren't. Sorry, but you'll have to ask someone else. Bishonen | talk16:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC).
I really don't mean to be picking on you here, but your comment at the TfD does have me a bit concerned: you don't have near the level of experience in main space that we expect from people who would get the user right, and it almost certainly wouldn't be granted to you if the reviewing admin took a look at your user talk page. People can patrol new pages without the right, but it is a good benchmark as to whether you should be doing it, or whether it is better to get more experience elsewhere first. Additionally PRODs like this are going to be procedurally declined since no reason has to be given for deletion. I then went back and sent it to AfD, because its a clear POV fork, but now instead of the simple process of PROD we have to go through up to 3 weeks of AfD. I don't think you've made any CSD taggings, but I would encourage you to stay away from them until you have a better understanding of policy. Our typical suggestion for editors who want to get involved with maintenance work but aren't yet ready for NPP is to go to the countervandalism academy and then do some work patrolling Special:RecentChanges. I think this would likely be good advice in your case as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry...
Sorry I accidentally pinged you. I was updating my userpage so you could see all of the conversations on my userpage so you don't have to visit my userpage. Ups and Downs (↕) 02:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello UpsandDowns1234. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jorge García (Nicaraguan footballer), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ihardlythinkso: On mobile, the word En starts before the image and is followed by a long line break then passant, and I was fixing that formatting issue on mobile. However, it messes things up on desktop. So either the image cannot show on mobile or the image just has to be used in the format [[imagename|...]]. Ups and Downs (↕) 16:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Am not seeing what you're seeing. (Am not using mobile for internet, but using the WP mobile device gadget, don't see line break or separation of "En passant" text.) Which image are you referring to (there are two in the lede). --IHTS (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you screencap that somehow? I switch to mobile view and zoom in as far as I can and I do not see this issue. Primefac (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Do not make mobile and desktop content differ just because of a bad linebreak. Why not code an nbsp between en and passant? And please stop pinging me to discussions that don't concern me. EEng17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with EEng on this one. User talk pages are one thing, but we shouldn't be massively changing the appearance of a page between desktop and mobile versions. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
(adding) turn off autoblock, I go to a place with a shared network. And add the indefblock template to the box. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request to dictate the terms of your own block. If the autoblock becomes an issue with others that can be amended, but until such time I really don't feel it necessary to change. Primefac (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I think WP:SO is all that is left now. No editing Wikipedia for 6+ months, no sock puppetry (i know that anyway, i am not tempted to do it), no block evasion. Also, you are right. Goodbye, see you in a few months. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, please nuke my pages. When I request an unblock and get unblocked, you can undelete them, but until then, goodbye. Ups and Downs (↕) 03:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Template:notcensoredwarning, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Template:uw-ban, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
wikiHow helped me notice my recently disruptive behavior: wasting time of other privileged editors cleaning up a mess. I notice exactly what I should do: revert vandalism, fix spelling, request page protection only if there is vandalism, tag pages with copyvio, and make edits to articles I feel like I know a lot about (such as technology and Wikipedia). And I want to say one more thing: I am kind, civil, only intending to improve Wikipedia. In other words: no more editing in the Wikipedia namespace unless if it is necessary (i.e. a policy prevents improvement of an article). I am not a vandal, I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I completely believe that projects such as Wikipedia, Wikimedia projects, and wikiHow will continue to succeed.
My second mistake: crossing policies from wikiHow and Wikipedia. That has gotten me blocked there, Anna let me know that it is a waste of my time, and that it is a waste of other wikiHow contributors' time. So I will respect that one project is one project is one project and another project is another project.
Finally, I think it is best that you revoke talk page access and shorten my block to six months from there. I am turning 16 tomorrow, I am getting less glued to policies, more specifically policies about pages in user space, user talk space, and much more. And yes Iridescent, Wikipedia is not my personal sandbox, it is an encyclopedia that is trying to gather all of the knowledge of all the persons into one relatively small array of servers (for a project with over 6929370 articles, no server size can satisfy Wikipedia's needs). I requested a block for six months about five months ago because I thought after six months I would become less disruptive. Now I am thinking six months from now, I will have my bad behavior in the distant past, and will start over and stop editing Wikipedia for a while. So all I am just asking is shorten my block to six months, and you will see that the disruption will stop. I no longer even click the "edit" button unless if I see something that I am interested in viewing the source of. I am very honest, have never evaded blocks, never committed sock puppetry, and now I am asking a shortening of my block to six months. I am competent in editing tech related articles, just not competent in other articles, or in certain tasks that I rush, such as new page patrolling. So let's just have my block shortened to six months, and my talk page access revoked, so that I can continue editing Wikipedia normally. I may have not been here to improve Wikipedia about six months ago, but I am now.
I'd have no issue with unblocking iff it's on the understanding that:
You make no edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (if a policy prevents improvement of an article you can discuss your proposed changes somewhere else);
No disruption of Wikipedia processes such as your drive-by nominations at WP:RFPP, and we decide what's disruptive not you;
No experimentation on any page other than sandboxes;
No creation of redirects; if you genuinely feel a redirect is necessary, you can suggest to somebody else that they create it;
No screwing around with html to make your userpage or talkpage intentionally difficult to read;
If anyone complains about anything you do, regardless of whether you feel the complaint is merited, you immediately stop whatever it is that caused the complaint.
If you're willing to abide by the above, I don't see an issue with giving you a second chance; if you're not, then I do. If you don't like these conditions, propose some others and I'll copy the request to ANI so others can discuss them. ‑ Iridescent19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it is best to bring it to the administrator noticeboard before imposing these sanctions on me upon unblocking. Like I said, 6 months no talk page access should do. After a discussion at ANI, any uninvolved admin may alter my block. But first, discuss. And I would say regarding No creation of redirects, let's make it so that there are no creation of redirects that redirect to the project namespace. Anna on wikiHow also discussed that I should not create redirects such as Template:Db because wikiHow is different that Wikipedia and has different rules than Wikipedia. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Note to uninvolved admins: If you shorten or remove my block, then mark the unblock request as successful, otherwise, mark the unblock request as unsuccessful. Retracting because you dictate whether my request was successful or not, not me.
Just to say, I'm not sure what the no talk-page access is meant to achieve, really; yes, I know it's because you (Redacted) about on it, and want to responsd positively (more power to that), but it wasn't the most egregious of your "offences" such as to require such a drastic remedy and in any case, it's unthinkable, surely, that in a collaborative environment—where communication is not just necessary but paramount—that you are unable to respond to other editors-! Meh, I think Iridescent's suggestions are sound in this matter. The point is, that after a ~?few months of successful, productive editing under those constraints will make it (probably) a dead cert when you come to ask for them to be lifted. See what I mean? >SerialNumber54129...speculates20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129 and Iridescent: Just bring it up to the administrator notice board, hopefully this almost year-long long list of problems will not happen again and will be fixed. I will list all of the things I have did wrong and what I will do to address them:
Misusing Wikipedia as a webhost - no more edits to userspace unless if it helps Wikipedia (such as drafts or pseudo-templates)
Breaking templates while trying to help (see Floquenbeam's archive). - always test in the sandbox and preview edits to avoid breaking things
Too many bogus page protection requests - only request if there is excessive vandalism or if consensus agrees
Also, no Twinkle since most disruption occurred with Twinkle.
Too many pointless redirects - only redirect from a page in the (main) namespace to another page in the (main) namespace. If in doubt, don't redirect.
Editing other people's pages and being glued to policies such as WP:SMI - understand that policies are not concrete or set in stone, they can be changed if it prevents someone from doing something (WP:IAR).
If you can figure anything else that is disruptive, add it to the above list and I will try to find solutions for them. Ups and Downs (↕) 22:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll post a neutral notification at AN asking for third parties to review, but per this I withdraw my support for an unblock. Wikipedia doesn't revolve around you, and if you're complaining because one of your comments doesn't receive a reply for six hours, to me it's a clear indication that the immaturity issues are still there. ‑ Iridescent09:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You are right. Saying "Hello?" will not make the unblock process go faster. I do not completely disagree, I agree with 1 and 2, I just believe that in order for such sanctions to be imposed, there may need to be consensus. Now I need to go to sleep now. See you later. Ups and Downs (↕) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I decide I will agree with these sanctions for the next six months. Violation of these sanctions is grounds for reblocking, and I have a few that I want to add. ANB may also have some they may want to add. I am just saying I agree with these sanctions. Now for the rest of the community. Ups and Downs (↕) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Why I was blocked in the first place
The reason why I was blocked in the first place was for three reasons:
Unencyclopedic behavior
Disruptive editing
Too much timewasting with other editors
And to see that I am on a tight leash, that means I must either make productive edits after I am unblocked (if this appeal succeeds which is unlikely) or risk being reblocked. But the thing is, I was blocked not because of WP:CIR, but because I just wasted time of other editors. As Primefac said, my contributions are 50% self-reverts and more than a few places where [Primefac] had to revert. So no more timewasting, I understand why I was blocked, for mixed good and bad editing. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and any CU may check my user account, but the IP I edited from and logged on to is shared. Not my home IP, my school IP. I never edit while logged out (maybe except once for testing purposes). That school IP was blocked before for vandalism, but before I even had access to it. I do not do sock puppetry because it is dishonest. One account for everything, period. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Last thing to consider: I know I do not know everything, since my common sense is still being developed. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see, I am seeing more and more and more and more and more and more annoyance because of my tendentious editing: [13]. Really? This appears very disruptive to Wikipedia. See WP:CANTHEARYOU. I was not getting the point. At least I won't do that again. Ups and Downs (↕) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Understand all I am trying to do is acknowledge my mistakes, and cringing when looking at my disruptive edits. I made several mistakes, and I understand why they are disruptive, and I want to make Useful contributions. I did mess up, and I am acknowledging my cross-wiki mistakes. Ups and Downs (↕) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I quit. This is very frustrating, at this point, I am taking an indefinite wikibreak. Goodbye for a long time. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've declined the UTRS and also added the banned template as they had their block reviewed at AN, and the community declined to unblock them. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Bunch of questions
What should I do now? Should I follow directions at template:2nd chance? I guess so. Plus, an indefban seems unfair given that I am younger than most editors. How about a ban from all edits outside of the main namespace? Should I appeal through ArbCom? Ups and Downs (↕) 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Indefinite does not mean infinite: as I told you in the UTRS ticket, you should consider appealing again in 6 months. The banning policy is clear that individuals who have had their unblock declined by the community are considered banned. As a practical matter, this just means the community must consent before you are unblocked. ArbCom no longer handles ban appeals from the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Am I still allowed to use this talk page? The banning policy is a little unclear in the sense that talk page access is usually not allowed. Does it mean that it is allowed for me but not others? Ups and Downs (↕) 18:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It's a "usually not allowed" thing, but that's been falling out of practice in some ways of late. No admin has revoked your TPA, so this is still open if you want to make an unblock appeal in the future, and I don't see a reason to revoke it at this time (it would just mean that we'd have to go through UTRS to allow you to have TPA back again when you requested an unblock). At the same time, you should not abuse your talk page access. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.
If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
